Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 101, Issue 3, pp 599–604 | Cite as

Control of piglet coccidiosis by chemical disinfection with a cresol-based product (Neopredisan 135-1®)

  • Evelyn Straberg
  • Arwid DaugschiesEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Isospora suis is a common pathogen in piggeries and one of the main causative agents of scours in suckling piglets. Besides specific treatment, optimised hygiene including chemical disinfection is considered essential in the control of isosporosis. The suitability of the cresol-based product Neopredisan 135-1® (NP) to inactivate oocysts in vitro and to reduce infection pressure in commercial piggeries was evaluated. Under in vitro conditions, NP at a final concentration of 2 or 4% induced lysis of more than 95% of sporulated oocysts at a contact time of 30 min and destroyed all oocysts after a contact time of 90 min or more. A total of six trials (T1–T6) were performed on two farms (I and II). T5 was split into two parts, T5/1 and T5/2. Two groups of litters kept in farrowing crates either disinfected conventionally before farrowing (controls, group C) or disinfected with 4% dilution of NP before farrowing and with 2% NP one to three times thereafter (group NP) were compared in each trial. Altogether, 81 litters were randomly allocated to group NP and 77 litters to group C (comprising a total of 1,465 piglets). Piglet faeces were collected individually 5 days after birth and six times thereafter in intervals of 2 or 3 days from four piglets per litter and microscopically examined for oocysts of I. suis. Diarrhoea scores, other clinical data (skin turgidity, coat length etc.), weights and loss of piglets until weaning were recorded. One trial (T3) could not be analysed because of insufficient cleaning before disinfection. In group C, litter prevalence of I. suis ranged between 40 and 80%. The proportion of positive litters was considerably reduced by approximately 50% in disinfected crates except for one trial, and the number of affected piglets decreased by up to 80%. Diarrhoea and oocyst excretion were significantly associated. Diarrhoea was less frequently observed in disinfected crates. In general, isosporosis appeared mild to subclinical, and no significant effects of disinfection on other clinical data, weight gain and number of weaned piglets were noted. It is concluded that NP efficiently inactivates oocysts of I. suis, and that additional disinfection after farrowing is suited to reduce infection pressure. No clear relation of infection prevalence to the frequency of intermediate disinfection (one, two or three times) was seen, and thus, single intermediate disinfection 1 week after farrowing is considered sufficient.

Keywords

Coccidiosis Toltrazuril Infection Pressure Sporulated Oocyst Oocyst Excretion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Christensen JBP, Henriksen SA (1994) Shedding of oocysts in piglets experimentally infected with Isospora suis. Acta Vet Scand 35:165–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Daugschies A, Böse R, Marx J, Teich K, Friedhoff KT (2002) Development and application of a standardized assay for chemical disinfection in parasitology. Vet Parasitol 103:299–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Driesen SJ, Carland PG, Fahy VA (1993) Studies on preweaning piglet diarrhoea. Aust Vet J 70:259–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Holm A (2001) Coccidiosis in piglets seen from the point of view of the practising veterinarian. Parasitol Res 87:357–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Koudela B (2003) Epidemiology and possibilities of control of Isospora suis in nursing piglets. In: Proceeding Meeting DVG–Fachgruppe “Parasitologie und Parasitäre Krankheiten,” Leipzig, 20–21 March 2003, p 14Google Scholar
  6. Koudela B, Vodstrčilová M, Klimes B, Vladík P, Vítovec J (1991) Chemoprophylaxis of porcine neonatal coccidiosis with toltrazuril (Baycox, Bayer). Vet Med (Praha) 36:657–663Google Scholar
  7. Landman WJM, Peek HW (2002) Anticoccidial-sensitivity profiles of West-European Eimeria spp. field isolates. Arch Geflügelkd 66(Suppl 2):61Google Scholar
  8. Larsen K (1996) Isospora suis. Porcine neonatal coccidiosis. Veterinaertidsskrift 79:387–392Google Scholar
  9. Martineau GP, del Castillo J (2000) Epidemiological, clinical and control investigations on field porcine coccidiosis: clinical, epidemiological and parasitological paradigms? Parasitol Res 86:834–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Matuschka FR, Heydorn OA (1980) Die Entwicklung von Isospora suis Biester und Murray 1934, (Sporozoa: Coccidia: Eimeriidae) im Schwein. Zoolog Beiträge 26:405–476Google Scholar
  11. Meyer CA, Joachim A, Daugschies A (1999) Occurrence of Isospora suis in larger piglet production units and on specialized piglet rearing farms. Vet Parasitol 82:277–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mundt H-C, Daugschies A, Wüstenberg S, Zimmermann M (2003a) Studies on the efficacy of toltrazuril, diclazuril and sulphadimidine against artificial infections with Isospora suis in piglets. Parasitol Res 90(Suppl 3):S160–S162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mundt H-C, Joachim A, Daugschies A (2003b) Population biology studies on Isospora suis in piglets. Parasitol Res 90(Suppl 3):S158–S159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mundt H-C, Joachim A, Becka M, Daugschies A (2005) Isospora suis: an experimental model for mammalian intestinal coccidiosis. Parasitol Res 98:167–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Niestrath M, Takla M, Joachim A, Daugschies A (2002) The role of Isospora suis as a pathogen in conventional piglet production in Germany. J Vet Med Ser B 49:176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robinson Y, Morin M, Girard C, Higgins R (1983) Experimental transmission of intestinal coccidiosis to piglets: clinical, parasitological and pathological findings. Can J Comp Med 47:401–407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Sanford SE (1983) Porcine neonatal coccidiosis: clinical, pathological, epidemiological and diagnostic features. Calif Vet 37:26–30Google Scholar
  18. Stephan B, Rommel M, Daugschies A, Haberkorn A (1997) Studies of resistance to anticoccidials in Eimeria field isolates and pure Eimeria strains. Vet Parasitol 69:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of ParasitologyUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations